Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Mala Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 July, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak, Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15340
1 WA-1564-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 22nd OF JULY, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 1564 of 2025
SMT MALA SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri J.P. Kushwaha - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Vivek Khedkar - Additional Advocate General and Shri Sohit Mishra -
Advocate for the respondents/ State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Anand Pathak
1. The instant Writ Appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh
Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is
preferred against the order dated 28th April, 2025 passed in Writ Petition
No.17084/2024 by the learned Writ Court whereby Writ Petition preferred
by the petitioner (hereinafter referred as "appellant") stood dismissed.
2. Grievance of the appellant is that vide order dated 13/06/2024, he
was posted at Circle Dehgaon and a Naib Tahsildar was posted in her place.
Thereafter again, vide order dated 25/06/2024, appellant was attached to
Tahsil Gohad where a regular incumbent Tahsildar was already in position
rendering her appointment without office, post or work.
3 . Learned counsel for the appellant submits that with regard to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15340
2 WA-1564-2025
order of attachment, appellant filed a detailed representation before
respondent No.2/ Commissioner Chambal Division, Morena but to no avail.
According to the appellant, as per Clause 52 of the Transfer Policy,
attachment orders should not be passed. It is further submitted that appellant
is the victim of frequent transfers as vide order dated 25/07/2023, she was
transferred from Morena to Bhind as Incharge Tahsildar and vide order dated
13/06/2024, she was transferred from Mau to Dehgaon, District-Bhind and
thereafter, vide order dated 25/06/2024, she has been attached to Tahsil
Officer, Gohad. Being aggrieved by the same, appellant preferred Writ
Petition.
4. The Writ Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, dismissed the writ petition however, granted liberty to the appellant to
move an application for transfer to any part of the State of Madhya Pradesh
and respondents were also granted liberty to pass an order of transfer of
appellant to any part of the State of Madhya Pradesh under the Rules, 1966.
5 . Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Writ Court did
not appreciate the facts of the case and passed the impugned order even
without considering Clause 52 of the Transfer Policy. Therefore, he prays for
setting aside the impugned order of the Writ Court as well as order of
attachment dated 25/06/2024.
6 . Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/ State opposed the
prayer and prayed for dismissal of the Writ Appeal.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
appended thereto.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15340
3 WA-1564-2025
8. Transfer is an incident of service. No one much less appellant has
any vested right to be posted at a particular place of posting. It is well settled
in law that employer is the best judge to organize its work force and it is also
well settled in law that a transfer order cannot be subjected to judicial review
unless and until same is found to be influenced by mala fide or arbitrary
exercise of powers which petitioner/appellant fails to do so. Concept of
equality as enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India, has
no application to the cases of transfers.
9 . In the present case, appellant has preferred this appeal against the
order dated 28th April, 2025 passed in W.P. No.17084/2024, in which the
learned Writ Court given finding that appellant not only concealed the fact
about filing of appeal before the Additional Commissioner Chambal
Division, Morena when she filed the Writ Petition vide No.21724/2024 but
also committed some irregularity while working as the Revenue Officer
(Nayab Tahsildar/ Tahsildar). In fact, Collector, Bhind vide order dated
11/07/2024 directed for registration of FIR against the appellant, therefore,
she was attached at Tahsil Office Gohad
1 0 . Learned counsel relied upon Clause 52 of the Transfer Policy,
however, from perusal of the said clause it appears that it is an executive
instructions and is not enforceable as such. In cases of transfer, usually
interreference is caused on the ground of malafide or violation of any Statue.
11. Although, appellant referred the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Dr. Amarjit Singh Ahluwalia Vs. The State of Punjuab and Others
(1975) 3 SCC 503 but that judgment moves in different factual realm where
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15340
4 WA-1564-2025
competence of the State Government was primarily discussed. The Apex
Court in the case of Union Of India And Ors vs S.L. Abbas AIR 1993 (SC)
2444 laid down the scope of interference in the transfer matters. However,
looking to the conduct of appellant as referred by the Writ Court, no case for
interference is made out. In fact, appeal is mis-conceived therefore, the same
is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand Only) to be
deposited favour of Juvenile Justice Fund having Saving Bank Account
No.60411029562 of Bank of Maharashtra, Branch Govindpura, Bhopal, IFSC
Code MAHB0001988 within two months.
12. The Writ Appeal stands dismissed accordingly.
(ANAND PATHAK) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
VC
